What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Enroute IFR on EFIS rather than 430W

Bugsy

Well Known Member
Question for seasoned aviators.

When flying enroute IFR, rather than loading flight plan into garmin 430 would it be legal to enter the enroute flight plan into the internal 5400 flight plan which is GPS guided by the 430 and then transition to 430 for approach.

Adding and deleting waypoints into 430 is a pain, much easier on EFIS. But is it legal?
 
Legal for general IFR flying? Yes.

Think about how a caveman like me can do it, with no certified GPS in the plane, and (if I wanted) paper charts. T routes and such are another discussion.
 
I?ll take a guess and say ?yes?. For enroute flying, you may manually enter waypoints (not for approaches), so that seems pretty much the same if the efis is supplying them.
 
As long as you have available to you a means of navigation legal per the designator you put on your IFR flight plan it doesn't matter how you navigate en-route. You are the pilot in command, it's your responsibility to fly the assigned route along the airway within a tolerance, which escapes me right now. Pilots who file /U are apparently sometimes asked to fly to GPS waypoints if they are able, even with just a handheld unit.

More practically I believe even un-certified non-WAAS GPS units would be more accurate than a VOR at nearly any distance.

So yes, you can use your un-certified, non-WAAS, handheld GPS unit to fly an en-route course on an IFR flight plan so long as you have legal IFR equipment available to you. Or specifically in your case an in-dash unit.
 
Last edited:
Legal, yes.

Advisable, perhaps not.

It?s all about the button pushing and attention diversions when in IMC.

If you?re flying IFR in VFR conditions, then no big deal. However, if they is any chance that you?re going to be in IMC on the approach, I would recommend keeping the flight plan on the 430. In my opinion, it?s better to develop consistent habits regardless of the flight conditions. I wouldn?t recommend doing it one way for VFR and another for IMC.

You also increase the risk on not pushing the appropriate buttons correctly, then you?re troubleshooting why the approach is happening as you anticipated.

Now if Garmin would only open up their proprietary API and allow flight plans to cross fill with other experimental EFIS vendors, then this would be an academic discussion. But the odds of that happening are slim to none. I believe that?s why Avidyne is gaining market share with those that install non-Garmin EFIS. Unfortunately, many of us didn?t have that option when we assembled our panels.
 
SNIP
Now if Garmin would only open up their proprietary API and allow flight plans to cross fill with other experimental EFIS vendors, then this would be an academic discussion. But the odds of that happening are slim to none. I believe that?s why Avidyne is gaining market share with those that install non-Garmin EFIS. Unfortunately, many of us didn?t have that option when we assembled our panels.

Exactly correct. The GTN-650 I installed in the RV-10 is the last piece of Garmin I?ll ever buy. The new RV-8 project will get the IFD540 to go with the dual SkyView install.

Carl
 
It?s all about the button pushing and attention diversions when in IMC. I would recommend keeping the flight plan on the 430. In my opinion, it?s better to develop consistent habits regardless of the flight conditions.

As I got further into my instrument training, I found this advice to be the best option for me.

By always loading the flight plan into the IFR GPS, I was always practicing what I would need in real flights.

I originally intended to use the EFIS GPs for VFR and the IFR GPS for IFR but I found it better to be consistent. I also became more comfortable and faster when needed to amend my flight plan "on the fly" because I was more practiced with the buttonology of the IFR GPS.
 
Great input

All good input. I especially like need to establish a consistent habit pattern

Also. Thinking about upgrading 430 to avidyne for same reason as described. Maybe next year.
 
I’ll take a guess and say ‘yes’. For enroute flying, you may manually enter waypoints (not for approaches), so that seems pretty much the same if the efis is supplying them.
I am not sure this is actually legal for IFR flight, I thought all (published) waypoints and approaches had to be sourced from the TSO'd GPS' internal database and be unable to be modified by the crew? That is, if you are navigating using your GNSS.
 
Legal, yes.

Advisable, perhaps not.

It?s all about the button pushing and attention diversions when in IMC.

If you?re flying IFR in VFR conditions, then no big deal. However, if they is any chance that you?re going to be in IMC on the approach, I would recommend keeping the flight plan on the 430. In my opinion, it?s better to develop consistent habits regardless of the flight conditions. I wouldn?t recommend doing it one way for VFR and another for IMC.

You also increase the risk on not pushing the appropriate buttons correctly, then you?re troubleshooting why the approach is happening as you anticipated.

Now if Garmin would only open up their proprietary API and allow flight plans to cross fill with other experimental EFIS vendors, then this would be an academic discussion. But the odds of that happening are slim to none. I believe that?s why Avidyne is gaining market share with those that install non-Garmin EFIS. Unfortunately, many of us didn?t have that option when we assembled our panels.

I have a Skyview and a 430W, and I *always* use the 430 for flight plans, because with all of the options for display and sourcing on the SV, it's *very* easy to get confused about what is driving what. You can display a flight plan from *either* the SV or the 430 on the moving map portion, and you can use either as your source for the PFD/HSI, AND they are selected independently. The chances of getting all jacked up and not realizing the wrong source is driving one or the other of these windows is too high, IMO.
 
i find i have plenty of spare time while flying to input flight info into 430, iPad, 496 ect. 430 drives the APilot. my brain drives the buttons. ;)
P1020279.jpg
 
I need to dig into this but pretty sure for IMC navigation on a IFR flight plan it would need to be a TSO129 receiver approved for enroute RNAV such as an Apollo gx65...at a bare minimum. When it comes to approaches it gets in the weeds of what WAAS buys you and what equipment is needed if you don?t have WAAS. You technically need to use the certified receiver to legally fly rnav route, it may use non approved sources for situational awareness only. If 2 points don?t agree, between my g3x database and my GTN650 database I have to follow the GTN650.
 
All good input. I especially like need to establish a consistent habit pattern

Also. Thinking about upgrading 430 to avidyne for same reason as described. Maybe next year.

Good plan Bugsy. Avidyne makes route planning incredibly easy, with all of the waypoint pre-populated on airways. I can flight plan faster on the IFD than I can even on ForeFlight. Come visit and you can play with mine!
 
I am not sure this is actually legal for IFR flight, I thought all (published) waypoints and approaches had to be sourced from the TSO'd GPS' internal database and be unable to be modified by the crew? That is, if you are navigating using your GNSS.

The big thing is for primary IFR nav, it has to be a TSO'd box (129, 196, 145, or 146) and if it's a 129/196 non-WAAS GPS then you have to have "an alternate approved and operational means of navigation suitable for navigating the proposed route of flight."

You can use a VFR GPS as a situational awareness aid, but not as a primary means of navigation and you shouldn't file /G without a TSO'd GPS.

The prohibition you listed for the waypoints is true for approaches and departures but not enroute (at least in the US IAW the AIM and AC 90-100).
 
Back
Top